Now to my way of thinking this gives a lot more credance to the notion of spontaneous organization. Not quite "proof" of evolution, mind you, but the best kind of evidence. Observable, verifyable, testable, reproducable. The only down side I can see from an evolutionists perspective is Tracey Lincoln herself. You know, the designer.

Funny.I'll bet you think you know as much about abiotic chemistry as you've convinced yourself you know about vestigiality...

-------Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."

Quote from timbrx at 8:07 PM on February 3, 2009 :I totally disagree. The predictions you mention are based on conjecture and have no bearing on what is happening now.

Never heard of Darwinian medicine..

The general theory of evolution is more dangerous than useful.

What is the 'general theory of evolution'?

For example, a creationist would predict that tampering with life through cloning and genetic manipulation could result in total catastrophe. Therefore it is best to let life be life on its own as with selective breeding.

That is not a prediction in the scientific sense.Folk science maybe.

As a creationist I would predict that we would enjoy better health if we ate foods that were not processed such as fresh ground wheat because that is how we were intended to eat. All of the chemical junk we eat every day messes up our body chemistry. And while medicine is for the most part good, I believe we could benefit from naturally occurring compounds rather than synthesized ones because that is why they were created.

More folk science, no predictions.

And as for evolution being the cornerstone for biological sciences, that is only if you want it to be. I am good friends with several MD's of various disciplines who practice medicine every day and don't believe in evolution.

MDs are applied scientists, technicians essentially. Few have doen research, fewer understand it. I know - I was in a graduate program in a medical school and got stuck teaching remedial classes to medical students.

I also have an anecdote of my own - a former neighbor of mine - a creationist - went to a doctor she met at her church - also a creationsit. My neighbor was having fainting spells and symptoms that seemed like hypoglycemia. She went to her YEC doctor and was tolkd that there is no such thing as hypoglycemia - God woulnd't allow such a thng to happen.We convinced her to go to a real doctor, she received treatment and is now fine.

But then they operate in the real world rather than the text book version.

They employ what the 'textbook version' has discovered for them.

I find it almost cute, in a sad sort of way, how creationist idoloze physicians yet hold actual research scientists in contempt.

How many cretos would argue with theior doctors about their diagnoses?

And by the way not only does modern science have its roots in Christianity but so does systematic medicine.

I still haven't heard a reason explaining what makes Creationism a valid scientific theory.

That's because you are not listening. Creation as an explanation of origin and a standard for experimentation and prediction is every bit as valid as the theory of evolution. Perhaps more so because it not only respects physical laws but also moral laws. And no matter how cold and hard science is the scientist will always be a person.

What do 'moral laws' have to do with science?

NOTHING.

It seems to me that if creationism were scientific, creatinists would not feel the need to ignore, dismiss, alter, distort and coopt actual science for their cause.

-------Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."

Progress is being made in understanding how life began on earth. But one big piece of the puzzle is knowing exactly under what conditions life did begin. We don't know the exact conditions of the earth billions of years ago. Perhaps that answer will come as we gain more information about exoplanets.

I don't know Orion -you have to be a believer first to find that article encouraging.

“At some point some of these threads will start joining together,” Dr. Sutherland said. “I think all of us are far more optimistic now than we were five or 10 years ago.”

The only reason Dr Sutherland believes that these threads will start joining together is that Dr Sutherland believes in the basic philisophical premise of naturalism. So it is just a matter of time when you believe.

But many biologists believe that in the oceans, the necessary constituents of life would always be too diluted. They favor a warm freshwater pond for the origin of life, as did Darwin

But what about the fact that organic molecules break down in water -they can't build up. Since they have no better ideas does that mean they are stuck with hypothesising about the one that they know can't work in preference to even worse scenarios that they know can't work?

For lack of fossil evidence, they have no guide as to when, where or how the first forms of life emerged. So they will figure life out only by reinventing it in the laboratory.

Lack of fossil evidence!Well there's a spot of honesty. And as for reinventing it in the lab. -there we are back to intelligent design -see a problem? If it happened then why isn't it happening now?I think we are as in need of intelligent intervention now as we were then.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Who made the aliens? Or did they evolve from microbes? So if they did, we wouldn't need them to create us in the first place.

You are wrong that nothing supernatural is required to start life. To go from non living to living is in itself unnatural. For it to occur would by definition be outside of nature or "supernatural". If humans create life from non life that would be an act of an agent (us) acting outside of nature (supernatural).

If it were natural for some chemicals to go from not living to almost living to alive it would occur on a microscopic level and would have to occur rapidly or the chemical combinations would break down. I grant that humans cannot explore every environment on earth at a microscopic level to find this process in action but you can believe they are trying.

You are wrong that nothing supernatural is required to start life. To go from non living to living is in itself unnatural. For it to occur would by definition be outside of nature or "supernatural". If humans create life from non life that would be an act of an agent (us) acting outside of nature (supernatural).

Timbrx, your statements are simply not true. For one thing, you're making up your own definitions about what constitutes supernaturalism. For another thing, you have absolutely no basis to say that abiogenesis is unnatural. That is entirely wishful thinking on your part.

Consider that conditions on earth 4 billion years ago were quite different from what we find on earth today. The major cause of the difference is that LIFE itself caused the changes in earth's environment and make-up.

That is a fact.

Besides changes to the earth's atmosphere, life (and plate tectonics) has created a variety of minerals that are not found on the other terrestrial planets in our solar system.

What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals.

Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet.

"For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology," says Hazen. "One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth."

So you see, there is abundant geological evidence that also supports evolution, and the evidence supports the fact that the earth is old - far greater than what the YEC would have you believe.

As for abiogenesis, research is gathering more clues to how life may have originated - under natural conditions. And if simple life is one day created in the lab that use processes that could have happened in nature - that is NOT at all supernatual. Supernatural implies something that can violate known natural laws - chemical or physical. Making the earth stand still would require a supernatural power - never mind the problems that would cause, as all that kinetic energy would probably be converted to enough heat energy to melt the planet, etc.

So your statements above don't make a whole lot of sense in light of known facts.

Everyone knows that life only comes from pre-existing life and that is what is natural on this planet.

Evolutionists work on 3 basic principles:1. Laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion.2. Matter originated from nothing, and 3. Living things came from non-living things

Pasteur disproved the idea that life came from non-life yet evolutionists believe it still against all evidence to the contrary. If life originated by itself in the past, why is this not ongoing? The evidence that this ever happened can't be forever unobservable in principle nor can it be simply assumed in the absence of observation.

If you want to postulate life from non-life in the past, then supernatural mechanisms cannot be a priori eliminated since we have no evidence that it could have happened naturally.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Pasteur disproved the idea that life came from non-life yet evolutionists believe it still against all evidence to the contrary. If life originated by itself in the past, why is this not ongoing?

Lester, please tell me you're kidding! You keep throwing out statements like the above that show that you absolutely don't have a clue to what you're talking about.

Louis Pasteur didn't disprove abiogenesis, he disproved the notion of Spontaneous Generation, which was the believe that whole organisms could appear from inanimate matter - such as the appearance of maggots in rotting meat left out in the open air, a nest of mice in a haystack, etc.

Abiogenesis deals with the evolution of cells from prebiotic molecules, most likely occuring in stages - processes that have not yet been determined, but of which there are a growing number of possibilities. Also, the environment of the prebiotic earth was vastly different than the environment of the earth today. One big difference was that there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Go back and read the scientific literature on the subject. But you won't do that because your mind is closed to that subject.

-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

They keep saying that Pasteur disproved a concept he never heard about.

Lester, spontaneous generation is NOT abiogenesis.

Who would believe in spontaneous generation nowadays? I mean, besides creationists, of course.

-------

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread Scientists assert (by Lester):Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.

porkchopWould we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?

Everyone knows that life only comes from pre-existing life and that is what is natural on this planet.

That's because our planet is teeming with life NOW. 4 billion years ago it wasn't. So where did the life come from? What we see is a lot of evidence that it arose naturally and NO evidence a magic skyman zapped it here.

Evolutionists work on 3 basic principles:

Since evolution is biology, biologists have nothing to do with these 3 basic principles you've outlined. Right off the bat your 0 for 3.

1. Laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion.

Physicists deal with this, not "evolutionists" and who but you and your cronies claim laws sprang from designless confusion?? Ever hear of string theory? or brane theory?

2. Matter originated from nothing,

Once again, it's physicists who deal with this, not "evolutionists". And once again, who claims matter originated from nothing??

3. Living things came from non-living things

Wrong again, since life to non life doesn't operate on the same processes as evoltion, it's not evolutinists who deal with this, it's biochemists. Like I said, you're 0 for 3.

Pasteur disproved the idea that life came from non-life

No he didn't. Pastuer showed that maggots don't appear spontaneously on rotting meat and bacteria doesn't form spontaneously in old soup. Please show us his experiments with primordial earth conditions. That makes you 0 for 4.

If life originated by itself in the past, why is this not ongoing?

It just might be but since life has evolved to live in every concievable environment on earth, this pre-existing life is probably gobbling it up as soon as it forms. And of course life has drastically changed the earth in the last 3.8 billion years.

If you want to postulate life from non-life in the past, then supernatural mechanisms cannot be a priori eliminated since we have no evidence that it could have happened naturally.

We have p[lenty of evidence that life arose from non life. We have NO evidence of any kind of magic skyman.

Once again, it's physicists who deal with this, not "evolutionists". And once again, who claims matter originated from nothing??

Evolutionists need this for a complete creation myth. Its like Quantum Physics -first it wasn't there and then it was there!Where do you say they say matter originated from - and don't give me the name of some nebulous theory -spell it out so my feeble mind can understand it.

Wrong again, since life to non life doesn't operate on the same processes as evoltion, it's not evolutinists who deal with this, it's biochemists.

Oh of course - don't lay claim to the whole story - divide the plausible stories up and make others responsible for the other imaginative parts of the same big story. You're right that it can't operate on the same principles, you need the self-replicator first before natural selection kicks in and that's a big order all on its own.

Pastuer showed that maggots don't appear spontaneously on rotting meat and bacteria doesn't form spontaneously in old soup.

ie. Life doesn't come from non-life.

It just might be but since life has evolved to live in every concievable environment on earth, this pre-existing life is probably gobbling it up as soon as it forms.

Somehow I doubt it could be happening spontaneously when people with brains and knowledge and special 'primordial' conditions can't even do it.

And of course life has drastically changed the earth in the last 3.8 billion years.

Well that's the official story but according to the oldest rocks, oxidation was already occurring way back at the beginning. Miller's mix was just what was needed, not what was demonstrably there.

We have p[lenty of evidence that life arose from non life.

I want to see that! Please give me the evidence!!

Wisp

Lester, spontaneous generation is NOT abiogenesis.

It's all life from non-life so you tell me the tehnical differences? I understand that it may be a bit embarressing to still believe in spontaneous generation in this day and age but exactly what is the difference?

Who would believe in spontaneous generation nowadays? I mean, besides creationists, of course.

Evolutionists.

Orion

processes that have not yet been determined, but of which there are a growing number of possibilities.

Oh.... you mean like plausible stories

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Evolutionists need this for a complete creation myth. Its like Quantum Physics -first it wasn't there and then it was there!Where do you say they say matter originated from - and don't give me the name of some nebulous theory -spell it out so my feeble mind can understand it.

OK, take two uncharged metal plates and put them 10nm apart. They will be pulled together because more virtual particles form on the outside than have room between them, and the pressure from the excess particles pushes the plates together. In this way energy can be extracted from "empty" space.

-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

I understand that it may be a bit embarressing to still believe in spontaneous generation in this day and age

Pretty much like "Let the Earth bring forth animals and stuff". No, we don't believe anything like that.

Lester, you just like to accuse us exactly with your own flaws.

It's called "projecting".Why not come up with some original ones?

-------

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread Scientists assert (by Lester):Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.

porkchopWould we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread Scientists assert (by Lester):Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.

porkchopWould we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?